dotCommonweal

Sex and The City -- the Movie

I saw it last night. Four quick comments.1. The movie is about the clothes. The people are essentially minor characters, who wear the clothes.2. There is a sense of humor about the clothes. Carrie's first wedding dress (from Vogue) had a turquoise bird on the veil, which, conjoined with her upswept hair style, made her look like Elsa Lanchester in the Bride of Frankenstein. Since Mr. Big looks like a little like Dracula (widow's peak, black hair, white skin, white shirt, black suit), it really worked. In the end, Carrie got married in a no-label dress, a welcome signifier, after two and a half hours of clothes, that life is not about the clothes, after all.3. The theater was totally segregated. There wasn't a Y chromosome in the room.4. The movie isn't going to win any academy award, but it does deal with a taboo subject in Hollywood ---growing older.

Comments

1)In a movie about clothes, the sub-theme was getting rid of accessories in the end, you have to face the truth of your life without the bird on your head (too bad I loved that bird!), or in Samanthas case, a gaudy ring on your finger.2)Samanthas speech to Smith in breaking up with him was the disappointing nadir of the movie I love myself more didnt capture the I was meant to be single direction that the movie could have taken. Maybe in some ways this was the creators refusal to be pinned down to seriousness, instead choosing to revel in the narcissism that after all, was the shows guilty pleasure.3)It was very disappointing that the movie set up the premise that one of the problems with the characters relationships was that they just werent listening to the men in their lives, but then never really represented the moment of true attentive connection that ostensibly was going to repair those relationships. In a franchise whose core pleasure was the dialogue and deep knowledge the women had with each other, there remains no representation of the same rapport being possible within a heterosexual relationship.4)The movie is not a representation of modern feminism. It does not speak for feminism or exemplify whats wrong with feminism. I just had to say that because Ive seen so many tiresome commentaries that confuse a single tv show/ movie run by a handful of people in the American entertainment industry for a complicated and contradictory strain of thinking espoused by huge numbers of people around the world. 5)I loved that Sarah Jessica Parker and Cynthia Nixon LOOKED LIKE they were in their forties. That rocked.

"4) The movie is not a representation of modern feminism. It does not speak for feminism or exemplify whats wrong with feminism. I just had to say that because Ive seen so many tiresome commentaries that confuse a single tv show/ movie run by a handful of people in the American entertainment industry for a complicated and contradictory strain of thinking espoused by huge numbers of people around the world. "I did see the movie with my wife. Other than one man alone, there were very few men. If you "suspend your disbelief" it is a fun movie. Other than that this is sick stuff as was the HBO series. It hits a nerve in that it touches on meeting someone and all the disappointments and vicissitudes. Otherwise....Judtih Warner gets it about right.http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/05/woman-in-charge-women-who-cha...

And on to more important women. The Sex and the City antithesis, Hillary is a woman who was into service from her college days. If she had not made the "cookies" remark she would have won this nomination. It does go deeper than that. Her vigor, courage, endurance, fortitude shone fiercely in the face of an openly derisive male opposition. The shameful male anchors will sadly find out that it is all on tape. Shirley Chisolm warned about it forty years ago. Most women showed up and history will tell us why some chose to stay at home or even oppose this historic woman. She was good because she was a great candidate not because she is a woman. Take that Chris Matthews. She has her faults but there she is equal to any man or woman out there. And certainly more credibility, experience, and history of service than the two remaining candidates. History will be better to her. Her quest and story continues.In defeat, some are beginning to give her due credit. She will survive this "damning with faint praise." I believe she taught all of us about our gender boundaries. Gail Collins does the "faint praise" bit. History will be better. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/07/opinion/07collins.html?_r=1&ref=opinio...

I went with my 16 year old daughter, mostly so that I could see her responses firsthand and mediate her experience, if necessary. I asked what she thought of the opening lines, something like: "Women come to New York for labels and love.""Ridiculous," my daughter said. "No one goes to New York for love. Work, maybe, but not love." She GOT the cartoon the franchise has become, understood its value as fantasy, and dismissed some of the gals' concerns as frivolous, shallow, and narcissistic. WHEW!Generally, we laughed longer and harder over the antics of the group of women in front of us in the theatre than over any of the gags in the movie. Their responses were over the top!

Okay, if you're going to see the movie that Sex and the City is, in the end, merely an entertaining knockoff of:Breakfast at Tiffany's.Audrey Hepburn --in Givenchy. Patricia Neal in Pauline Trigere.Sartorial perfection abhors excess.

"Sartorial perfection abhors excess."Ah, yes, the only article of clothing I never gave away cheerfully was a black sleeveless crepe de chine sheath I bought when I was 28. I wore it for nearly 20 years, dressed up with a long fluttery pink and black silk scarf a la Isadora Duncan, or rhinestone pin. Alas, the over-50 figure is not designed for sleeveless anything, and I finally sent the sheath on its way to St. Vincent de Paul. I have not felt like Audrey Hepburn since.

"I did see the movie with my wife. Other than one man alone, there were very few men."A couple of evenings ago I took the kids to see "Kung Fu Panda" (which turned out to be a celebration of the spirituality of dueling - a theme curiously undertreated in the Christian tradition, for some reason). On our way to our theatre in the cineplex, we walked past a line of patrons (perhaps "matrons" would be more apposite) waiting to get into the theatre showing "Sex and the City". My unofficial tally: Thirty women. One man (with his wife).

There seems to be deep male hatred for this movie if my students are any indication. I asked them how they weathered the weekend storms. One said she went to see S&C and the men started groaning and saying they were boycotting the movie, refusing to see it with girlfriends, etc. etc. blah blah. I should have suggested they go see "Kung Fu Panda."

"There seems to be deep male hatred for this movie if my students are any indication. I asked them how they weathered the weekend storms. One said she went to see S&C and the men started groaning and saying they were boycotting the movie, refusing to see it with girlfriends, etc. etc. blah blah. "It seems a little over the top, doesn't it? Sometimes I wonder what (a lot of) American males see as the core of their identity? "I'm not a woman", "I'm not into fashion", "I'm not gay", "I don't like chick lit" ... okay, we know what you're not, but what *are* you?I once asked a group of deacons how they minister to the men in their parish. The suggestions all revolved around golf leagues and activities involving power tools and pickups. Isn't there more to manhood than that?

Over the top?I dunno.Most of the men indicated that they believe that the movie might feed among their girlfriends unhealthy preoccupation with fashion and male entrapment schemes. It didn't seem to have anything to do with power tools, golf or chick lit. But I never saw the show and I don't plan to see the movie, so maybe Cathleen can explain what's raising male hackles.

I guess . . . I think Midwestmind has it right. The men in the movie, Mr. Big, etc. weren't actually people. The people were the women. The men were, well, kind of like accessories, or pets. More gratifying than shoes, but much more trouble than shoes too.I could see how a man might not find this a particularly enjoyable way to spend 4 hours.

Men: Accessories or Pets?While my 12-year-old son has never seen "S&C" on TV and is not going to see the movie on DVD anytime soon, he reports that that's pretty much how girls his age view boys. They even have nicknames for the boys (like Mr. Big?), and spend a lot of time asking boys to do things for them--carry their trays back to the cafeteria, run out to the playground and save them a special swing, and generally yank their chains around.Perhaps the men in my class feel that the "S&C" girls had never really grown beyond the emotional age of 12 year olds. This speaks well of them, in my view. If that's really why they are resisting the movie.I should add that the women who saw the movie weren't all that enthusiastic about it.OK, enough from me. Don't you love it when people who haven't even seen the movie under discussion hog the thread?